If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my free Email alerts. Thanks for visiting!
SANCTION RULING WILL MAKE ORLY ONLY THE MORE DETERMINED !
by John Charlton
(Oct. 13, 2009) — The Post & Email has just received this personal reaction, to Land’s Sanction Order, from Mr. Charles E. Lincoln III, Dr. Taitz’s assistant:
I would point out that in Cohens v. Virginia, decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1821, Chief Justice Marshall wrote that for a court to refuse to exercise its jurisdiction was “treason” to the constitution.
Judge Land has built his entire assault against Orly’s integrity based on the doctrine of abstention—that he has jurisdiction which he should ignore. The 11th Circuit Mindes case from 1971 specifically found constitutional questions regarding the military and the application of its rules were subject to Judicial challenge, yet Judge Land ignores the substance of the very precedent he cites.
Judge Land issued a 43 page order condemning Orly, for among other things, utilizing the Courts for political purposes, and yet he proposes to use the $20,000.00 he expects to obtain from Orly for what can only be called a political contribution to advance certain political positions and philosophical assertions within the army.
Judge Land is clearly utilizing his power under Rule 11 to attempt to sanction Orly for legitimate exercise of her First Amendment Right to Petition, and that of her clients. Post-judgment motions and an appeal will be filed—your readers can rest assured of that. Orly is exploring the possibility of a direct appeal or request for stay of judgment to the U.S. Supreme Court. Needless to say, Judge Land’s abuse of his position just makes Orly more determined, angrier than ever.
Orly does feel that this is further evidence that the U.S. Judiciary is subject to political pressures analogous to her “memories of life in the former Soviet Union”, and those are her words because I have no such memories.